The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[classicsucks]

...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....

I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.

In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.

Wait - you'll never get there.

Bitcoin Core imposed a limit on the number of hot dogs you can buy - otherwise you'll break the network - EHRMAGERD.

[ComputerGenie]

...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....

I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.

In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.

Wait - you'll never get there.

Bitcoin Core imposed a limit on the number of hot dogs you can buy - otherwise you'll break the network - EHRMAGERD.

At that point, neither Bitcoin nor Core has anything to do with it or any say in the matter.

[Paashaas]

But I also don't want LN as the only second layer as some Core Maximalists like it.

Bullshit, where did you get that anti-Core FUD  r/btc?

Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into a beast.

Innovation will florish, each sidechain with there own specialization and there will be a lot of sidechains.

Always remember; Bitcoin cannot go mainstream without sidechains and those sidechains are beeing designed around Segwit for obvious reassons.

[ComputerGenie]

...Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into a beast...

No, Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into NotBitcoin.  

Conjoining all this bullshit into one argument waters down the validity of any position you might attempt to maintian.
PS - In case anyone missed it before: LN can happen without segwit.

[allinvain]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

[dinofelis]

...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....

I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.

In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
I create a transaction to buy 1 hot dog.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 1st transaction
I create a transaction to buy 2 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 2nd transaction
I create a transaction to buy 3 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
We agree to process the "finalized" transaction for 16 hotdogs.

The sneaky part in this, is that I have to "commit" my bitcoin stash for 16 hotdogs from the start with you, and you better commit some coins too, or otherwise, you have nothing to lose in this.  So when I buy my first hot dog, instead of paying 2 mBTC, I have to engage already some 40 mBTC with you in a channel.  If after all, the first hot dog I buy is not that great, and I want to buy my second hot dog with a competitor, I have to chose: do I settle on chain, to get 38 mBTC back, but only after 100 blocks or so (the security period) ; or do I want you to transmit my transaction to the competitor (LN usage), which you may very well decide not to do, because, exactly, it is a competitor, or ask an insane fee for it (because, exactly, it is a competitor) ?

With the LN, contrary to any other form of P2P, you "lock in" your stash to your partner, and you can only get it back by settling on-chain (cost, and delay of 100 blocks) or depend on the willingness of your partner to transmit the transaction and accept all of his conditions.

This is why you better do not pair up with "just anyone on the internet", but only with a "trusted bank".

[dinofelis]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

The point is that the whole interaction model of a crypto (decentralized, trustless) consists in people not being able to work together (collude) because they have opposing interests (= decentralized) and cannot trust one another (trustless).

[-ck]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 

[Last of the V8s]

there's a scaling problem?

I don't get this. Can you give us cliffs on how this solves the problem of scalability that 20MB brings and the lack of decentralization that 1MB + Lightning Network brings? (and eventually problems anyway because even with 1MB + LN the 1MB will eventually not be enough).

if there's a problem of scalability the devs will get to it once they have done the more important work such as freeing the client from the cruft wrongheadedly added in recent years

[allinvain]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 

Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all!

[-ck]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 

Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all!

I can't really tell if you realised that was just a pun based on your handle or not...

[Searing]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 

Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all!

I can't really tell if you realised that was just a pun based on your handle or not...

What are your thoughts on UASF? Is it going to break the deadlock...or cause a fork...or who the hell knows?

[allinvain]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

The point is that the whole interaction model of a crypto (decentralized, trustless) consists in people not being able to work together (collude) because they have opposing interests (= decentralized) and cannot trust one another (trustless).

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. I understand that people may have opposing interests, but you would think that these opposing parties would realize that co-operation is in their own best financial interest. It does require compromise in some cases, but burning the house down when you don't get your way is childish and immature. The whole world is watching us and everyone is going to laugh at us if the community implodes in on itself. I hope people realize how much trust and good will will be destroyed if btc fragments.

Anyways, I will let you guys get back to your heated technical debate. I'll quietly hope rationality wins in the end.

Cheers!

[allinvain]

If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 

Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all!

I can't really tell if you realised that was just a pun based on your handle or not...

lool of course I realized! But I also decided to give you a serious answer. You clever guy you! Wizard of wit achievement unlocked!

[-ck]

What are your thoughts on UASF? Is it going to break the deadlock...or cause a fork...or who the hell knows?

My thoughts specifically on what I think is going to happen or what I think of UASF?

[Searing]

What are your thoughts on UASF? Is it going to break the deadlock...or cause a fork...or who the hell knows?

My thoughts specifically on what I think is going to happen or what I think of UASF?

Either...I've no clue in this cluster...just curious if it is gonna break the log jam in some manner for some real movement
or just die a slow death like the other options tossed around and being blocked by either party.

WE probably need a good dump in price back to 1k just to scare these dev whales of whatever flavor to suck it up and comprimise

but again, clueless on the coding arguements etc on what is best...doubtful eiher camp miners or bitcoin core ..in that anyone having

twiter wars is not serious about a solution

anyway just curious ..about the USAF angle

[DooMAD]

UASF still doesn't appear to be gaining much in the way of traction.  Its supporters keep alluding to this 'snowball effect' to put pressure on miners but, apart from the odd spike which looks somewhat artificial, the node count is still only ~800 signalling BIP148.  But equally, things seem to have gone a little quiet on the SegWit+2MB side too.  It almost feels like there's no real impetus to be found anywhere.

If both ideas completely fail to break the deadlock (and extension blocks never even got off the ground), my hope is that people will take another look at SegWit+Variable and try to reach some sort of compromise around that.

[-ck]

UASF is an interesting and very aggressive move towards forcing a split. I think the most pushed-for UASF in the form of BIP148 is far too aggressive too soon and is doomed. August 1 is very close and gives the compromisers very little time to formulate a meaningful and safe middle ground (read segwit + 2MB) to keep miners on board and avoid any splits. Should no compromise occur before that time, those signalling BIP148 will be left feeling very cold with almost no hashrate to support them, and a dead slow blockchain going nowhere. The proponents of BIP148 say there is nothing to lose and that those who are on the main chain will be the ones to lose when a reorganisation happens in the future and the uasf chain becomes the only active chain. I think this is fanciful given the absolutely minuscule miner support it currently has to create such a chain. The only realistic chance it has is if it is also coupled with the ridiculously destabilising move of changing proof of work since it will no longer need existing miner support. This of course then turns it into a hard fork as well...

What I think will happen is UASF will continue to be perceived as a threat that will make the existing players more likely to accept a compromise. The Silbert agreement was doomed from the start without any code or developers or core support but then again it was an overwhelming display of what the miners would agree to. UASF and specifically BIP148 has forced core developers to try and find that compromise point before any significant split could occur. In fact should this eventuate, and I believe it will, those who mine true UASF blocks from August1 before a compromise soft fork will be the only ones left on a dead end fork with a block chain that joins no one.

A large number of core developers are against BIP148 while most are for UASF in principle. UASF could in fact work without such an aggressive short time frame and core support but BIP148 is forcing the issue too soon with too little support.

[The One]

...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....

I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.

In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
I create a transaction to buy 1 hot dog.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 1st transaction
I create a transaction to buy 2 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 2nd transaction
I create a transaction to buy 3 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
We agree to process the "finalized" transaction for 16 hotdogs.
The "finalized" transaction goes into the mempool like any other Bitcoin transaction (basically as if we'd only ever agreed on me buying 16 hotdogs and making a "standard" Bitcoin transaction to begin with).

Yes, there are cases where someone might put up enough servers that they control the "loin's share" of the LN and "control" fees, until some random guy throws up the LN equivalent of a node, charges nominally more than the "average" mined fees, and the bank you imagined looses any "stronghold" that they had.

While I'm not a fan of altering a protocol for non-protocol related end uses for the protocol, the principle of LN is to introduce voidable transactions into a system designed to be non-voidable. I think that this opens the door for a version of Bitcoin that is anti-Bitcoin; however, since it can actually be done without segwit (a few minor tweaks and a minor softfork) and it creates a greater use for Bitcoin in the general populous, I'm not totally against it.

It was vending machine.
Then coffee.
Now hot dog.
What next?

[ComputerGenie]

...The sneaky part in this, is that I have to "commit" my bitcoin stash for 16 hotdogs from the start with you, and you better commit some coins too, or otherwise, you have nothing to lose in this.  So when I buy my first hot dog, instead of paying 2 mBTC, I have to engage already some 40 mBTC with you in a channel.  If after all, the first hot dog I buy is not that great, and I want to buy my second hot dog with a competitor, I have to chose: do I settle on chain, to get 38 mBTC back, but only after 100 blocks or so (the security period) ; or do I want you to transmit my transaction to the competitor (LN usage), which you may very well decide not to do, because, exactly, it is a competitor, or ask an insane fee for it (because, exactly, it is a competitor) ?...

With any Bitcoin transaction, you must "commit all of your stash", so I'm not sure why this is even a mention.

As for the rest, it seems that you and I are working on different base information. I'm curious as to where you got this "100 blocks" from; could you link me to this....